I don't know about you, but this is all I hear from the pundits. Occasionally one will speak up for young people in this country, explaining that they're not all a bunch of hooligans, and that they do seem really, really, awfully excited to vote this year. Oh, and that they came out to the primaries in pretty big numbers, right?

But then all the rest of the talking heads at the table burst into laughter, and one usually makes some inane remark about "kids" voting when 1)pigs fly, 2)hell freezes over, or 3)the Cubs win the World Series.

Well, as EJ Dionne points out todayin his Post column, the Cubs might actually win the Series...and young people just might tip this election:

Remember all the hoopla about whether or not Hispanics would support Barack Obama? Well, according to the latest poll, it looks like McCain can pretty much kiss Hispanic votes goodbye:

The poll of 2,015 Latino voters conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center found that Democrat Barack Obama, who lost the Hispanic vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 2-to-1 in the Democratic primary, holds a commanding 66 percent to 23 percent lead over Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

More under the fold:

Remember way back when Bill Clinton said upper-income voters "don't really need a president?" I was damn near apoplectic at the time, --but after much of the debate on sites like Kos and DU lately, I'm beginning to wonder.

Not that I think Bill was right--but I'm starting to understand why he said it. After all, if some of you are willing to sacrifice to the slaughter the best candidate we've had in generations because of one issue, be it faith-based services or FISA, then not only were you drinking the Kool-Aid to begin with, thinking that Obama was a second Kucinich--but you sure are acting like you don't need a president.(And let me be clear here--I'm not talking about those whose enthusiasm has waned, who've expressed doubts, or who are withholding money. I'm talking about those of you who are making noise about not voting Democrat or not voting at all.)

I'm sure that some of you have convinced yourselves that your righteous stand is for the good of the Democratic Party, and that your online anger will singlehandedly move us to the left. Mmmm hmmm. But before you withhold your vote in magnificent protest, please consider the people that I work for.

In this week's issue of the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that Bush and Co are stepping up covert operations in Iran. Hersh appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and said that "Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents."

Hersh's new article, "Preparing the Battlefield," is the latest in a series that exposes the Bush administration's preparations for and intent to go to war with Iran.

More below the fold:

The Supreme Court decided 5-4 yesterday to rule out the death penalty as punishment for any crime except that in which the victim’s life was taken.

Whew. (Pause to wipe sweat off forehead.) Using the death penalty as punishment for any crimes beyond murder was more than a slippery slope—it was a vast moral chasm spreading out between our highest ideals and our basest emotions. So thank god the Supreme Court has closed it up. The majority went beyond the child rape case in question and

laid down a critical standard: in cases of crimes against individuals (which excludes treason and espionage) the death penalty can be applied only when the victim's life is taken. That rule should deter efforts to extend the use of capital punishment.

Which is all good. But given all the recent hesitations, virtual moratoriums, and reversals on the death penalty, why do we still have one? Why is it that every time it seems that the country is finally going to come to its senses and do what most civilized countries in the world have done, banning capital punishment--we start killing people again?

I’ve been a strong supporter of Barack Obama for many reasons: his leadership style, his practical liberalism, his focus on the future and his goal of bringing Americans from all walks of life together to get things done.  I also support him because he’s black.

Don’t misunderstand me—it’s not that I wouldn’t be supporting him anyhow, or that voting for a black man makes me feel good as a white person, or anything as surface or superficial as that. But his race and his background is important to me, because I’ve lived in so many places where largely African-American, Latino, or Asian communities were metaphorically walled off, mired in poverty and violence, with too few signs of progress making their way through the neighborhoods.  And I wanted so much for children in those communities, for biracial children and children of all colors to have the most positive example you could find of why color doesn’t have to be a barrier to success, and that no matter what color you are, you can grow up to be anything that you want to be—even the President of the United States.

That’s why for me, a single comment was the single best part of the single best story that I read this week: "Tonight is the night that all Americans became one."

My husband and I headed over to the RBC meeting this morning, just to walk around with our coffee and check out the Hillary supporters protesting. We were a little surprised at how few there were, but less surprised by the rhetoric, vitriol, and Lanny Davis-esque talking points we heard as we walked through the crowds.

We headed for home too soon though, I guess, because we missed the day's big celebrity--Larry "I did drugs and had sex with Obama" Sinclair. And the warm reception that Clinton supporters gave him. For those of you, like me, waiting for the RBC committee members to come back, read more below the fold...

Now I finally understand the hateful tone and--dare I say, bitterness?--behind Geraldine Ferraro's divisive comments throughout this election. In her op-ed piece today in the Boston Globe,  "Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism," she says a whole bunch of ridiculous stuff. Most of it we've heard before, from her and from others.  

But there was something new in this piece--something that instantly sent any lingering respect I had for her swirling down the drain of division and past the point of no return in American politics.  It also sent a message, loud and clear, about Ferarro's real motivations for speaking out in this campaign.

Here's the scary, scary thing that Ferarro says: she claims to speak for "Reagan Democrats," (later calling identifying this group as "white") and says that when Barack Obama "said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed."  

After reading the latest in a series of condescending editorials by women accusing others of their gender of betrayal or ignorance because we aren't all supporting Hillary Clinton, I finally feel like I have to speak out.  

I have held my peace out of respect for feminists, especially older feminists, to whom Clinton represents not just a female candidacy, but the triumph of women over the many hurdles and obstacles they've overcome throughout years of discrimination and frustration in a male-dominated world. I don't share the disappointment they feel, but I understand it. And so I've been respectful and said nothing.

But as the newest of these articles trickles out and encourages a certain segment of women to disregard and disdain party unity in the name of feminism--well, I have to say something now. The bitter pill these women are trying to peddle as feminism is not the feminism that I was taught by my mother and the wonderful women-and men--in my life. It is not positive. It is a negative force that needs to be addressed and challenged.

Because let's face it, that's what the "elite" label is really all about. Those of us who've felt incredibly insulted by Clinton and Fox News' comments about Obama the Elitist, Harvard-educated and pointed-headed know what Obama knows: education isn't cheap (for most of us) and it doesn't come easy.

People like my husband and I, both from solidly middle-class families, are tagged with the "elite" label because we worked hard enough and took out enough student loans to go to college, then graduate school. Meanwhile, Hillary is running around bragging about her support from whites without college degrees.

So thank god someone (Stanley Crouch) has taken the time to point out in print that all these attacks on education are attacks on what's best about America.

I read Jimmy Crackcorn's diary on the potential job loss and revenue loss from the idiotic "Gas Tax Holiday" proposed by Clinton and McCain, and I got mad. Well, madder. I'm originally from Minnesota, where after the tragic bridge collapse you don't casually talk about taking millions away from infrastructure just to pander to a few voters.

So I decided to use Jimmy Crackcorn's excellent Gas Tax Holiday calculator to see exactly how much I would personally save from this proposed idiocy--and donate it directly to Obama's campaign...

Listening to the pundits and the superdelegates and the campaign surrogates lately, I've come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party is the awkward, skinny underdog in high school. Not the kind of nerds with an identifiable nerdiness--rather, the Scott Howard of nerds. You know, the guy that's smart but kinda tries to hide it, that's small for his age and not too coordinated--the guy who's got a few friends but is JUST cool enough that he yearns for more the Pamela Wells of the world. He's a grass is always greener kind of guy--the kind of guy who ditches his friends a little too easily at the first "Hello," from a popular girl. Or is tempted to use his newfound werewolf powers to sell T-shirts rather than stand up for nerds everywhere.  

So what the hell does this have to do with anything, other than my love of a labored analogy and Teen Wolf? Well, it's my way of reassuring myself and many of you that the Democratic Party isn't going to abandon us entirely for their new best friends, the "Lunch Pail Voters" or the "Reagan Democrats," if you prefer.

The latest up on the CNN Political Ticker is really unbelieveable--a a story detailing the latest hit job on Obama by the McCain team. I don't really think CNN's purpose is sinister, exactly, but this kind of  this is not only lazy journalism (why examine a story when you can just slap a campaign's email up and call it a day?) it's not exactly objective journalism. Especially when you include the entire fundraising ask part of the email.

The McCain fundraising e-mail says Obama’s stands have earned him "kind words" from Hamas. "John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama," writes Ferry. "While Senator Obama would surrender in Iraq and hold talks with the Iranian regime, John McCain will never surrender in the struggle with Islamic extremists. Please join our campaign today by making a generous donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or $2,300."

And especially when, to get to the response by Obama's team, you have to click the "read the rest of this entry" link.

The world, obviously, is going to hell in a hurry. We seem to be standing at the point of no return on so many different issues crucial to the future survival of our planet and our species. Global warming, terrorism, food and water shortages and overpopulation, our health care crisis...the list is a mile long. Who Americans elect will, of course, have everything to do with the peril or prosperity of the world.

Knowing that, and even hoping and hopeful that we will elect Barack Obama (and I'm not naive enough myself to think he'll solve all the world's problems, but at least there's hope for the future there versus eternal war and tax cuts with McCentury)I find myself at an age where I face a similar point of no return:

Do I want to put more little people on the planet? Or do my husband and I forgo the pleasures of having children and instead work towards improving the world for those already here? And if children, how many kids is too many? What is responsible procreation in this day and age?

Like many of you, I'm a Gen-Xer. I'm supposed be a cynical bastard, tuned out and too cool for sincerity. And for most of my life, I have been. Like most of my friends, I spent my teen and college years with three goals: 1)be in a band 2)get really high and 3)hate everything.

But gradually, over the last several years, something has been happening to me. Maybe it's a sort of late maturity--though I doubt it. I think it started to bubble up after Paul Wellstone died and Republicans stood up en masse in protest of his memorial service and elected his sleazy opponent, Norm Coleman, defeating poor Mondale, and the Swiftboaters won, and the Creation Musuemwas born, and Roberts and Alioto joined the Supreme Court, and the VP told a US Senator to go fuck himself...you get the idea.

And that thing kept bubbling and bubbling until it spilled over in a fountain of rage and fear and despair and suddenly, all the cynicism in the world won't mop it up.  And though I feel like a lameass saying it, Barack Obama and his message of hope and unity suddenly seem like the only thing in the world that can save us...